Random forests as a tool to understand the snow depth distribution and its evolution in mountain areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The small scale distribution of the snowpack in mountain areas is highly heterogeneous, and is mainly controlled by the interactions between the atmosphere and local topography. However, the influence of different terrain features in controlling variations in the snow distribution depends on the characteristics of the study area. As this leads to uncertainties in high spatial resolution snowpack simulations, a deeper understanding of the role of terrain features on the small scale distribution of snow depth is required. This study applied random forest algorithms to investigate the temporal evolution of snow depth in complex alpine terrain using as predictors various topographical variables and in situ snow depth observations at a single location. The high spatial resolution (1 m x 1 m) snow depth distribution database used in training and evaluating the random forests was derived from terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) devices at three study sites, in the French Alps (2 sites) and the Spanish Pyrenees (1 site). The results show the major importance of two topographic variables, the topographic position index and the maximum upwind slope parameter. For these variables the search distances and directions depended on the characteristics of each site and the TLS acquisition date, but are consistent across sites and are tightly related to main wind directions. The weight of the different topographic variables on explaining snow distribution evolves while major snow accumulation events still take place and minor changes are observed after reaching the annual snow accumulation peak. Random forests have demonstrated good performance when predicting snow distribution for the sites included in the training set with R 2 values ranging from 0.82 to 0.94 and mean absolute errors always below 0.4 m. Oppositely, this algorithm failed when used to predict snow distribution for sites not included in the training set, with mean absolute errors above 0.8 m.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".